Micro media systems

Abstract

In this article, the concept of “micro media system” is introduced to describe the relations between media and politics in microstates and societies. Drawing on ideas from the literature on democracy in microstates (Benedict, 1967; Corbett and Veenendaal, 2018; Sarapuu and Randma-Liiv, 2020), it is argued that despite their many differences, the smallest media systems share four characteristics linked to their micro size: (1) government domination, (2) high social integration and overlapping role-relationships, (3) multi-functionalism among journalists and media outlets, and (4) dependence on few individuals. These characteristics of micro media systems can weaken the media's position in society vis-à-vis other institutions. Whereas previous research on small media systems (e.g., Puppis, 2009) has considered size as a binary variable, in this article it is argued that the size of media systems is better perceived as a continuous variable. This implies that the characteristics of micro media systems become more pronounced the smaller the media system.

Keywords

Microstates small states media systems size political communication news media journalism

Introduction

Media systems are formed by the social, political, and economic structures in which the news media operate. Many researchers have sought to identify the most defining variables in order to compare and categorize media systems. Hallin and Mancini (2004), for example, argued that media systems in the Western world differ on four dimensions: their media markets, the professionalization of journalists, the role the state plays in the media sector, and the relations between the media and the political system, that is, political parallelism. They argue that a geographical pattern can be observed and thus propose a typology of three ideal types: the liberal or North Atlantic model; the democratic corporative or North/Central European model and the polarized pluralist or Mediterranean model. However, no media systems smaller than Ireland of approximately four million people were included in Hallin and Mancini's “Comparing Media Systems.”

Scholars of some of the smallest media systems have since studied how these small media systems fit into Hallin and Mancini's typology. In studies of the media systems of the west, Nordic countries Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Iceland (Ravn-Højgaard et al., 2021)—countries which all have considerably smaller populations than the countries included in Hallin and Mancini's research—it is argued that although these media systems share a lot of characteristics with the larger Nordic countries due to shared history and institutional transfer, the west Nordic media systems are still different in some aspects. In their pioneering studies of media and politics in Iceland, Jóhannsdóttir (2019) and Ólafsson and Jóhannsdóttir (2021) have argued that Iceland does not fit into one of Hallin and Mancini's three models but is best described as a hybrid media system with traits from each of Hallin and Mancini's three models; as Iceland, for example, has a Nordic tradition of large public service media institutions and at the same time strong traits of, for example, clientelism. In Hallin and Mancini's (2004) typology, the former is a characteristic of the democratic-corporatist model and the latter of the Mediterranean model. The present article suggests a possible explanation for these findings of the lack of fit of the very smallest media systems in Hallin and Mancini's typology. Namely that the lack of fit can be ascribed to the variable size.

Several media scholars have considered country size an important factor shaping media systems and argue that small media systems share similar structural characteristics distinct from those of larger media systems (see e.g., Lowe and Nissen, 2011; Puppis, 2009; Trappel, 1991, 2014). However, these scholars all apply a lower cut-off limit in terms of the population size of the states they include in their studies thereby excluding the very smallest states. For example, in Puppis’ “Media regulation in small states” (2009), states with less than 100,000 people (termed “microstates”) are excluded in his definition of small states without explanation. Likewise, other scholars have excluded the very smallest states by arguing that these states “can be distinguished [from small states] by more specific characteristics” (Randma-Liiv, 2002). But what are those “more specific characteristics” that set the media systems in the very smallest states—that is, microstates—apart from the media systems of larger states? This question has been left unanswered in media system literature to this point.

As Ólafsson (2020) has argued that democracy studies may help answer this question. Whereas most existing literature on media systems in small states has primarily focused on the structural effects of small media markets, democracy studies have studied the effects of the distinct “social ecology of micro societies” characterized by closely knit communities with highly personalized relationships (Benedict, 1967; Farrugia, 1993). This article argues that this special ecology of small societies makes micro media systems distinct from larger media systems. Empirically, the argument is based on a literature review of research on the smallest media systems around the world. Based on this review, the article argues that due to their extreme smallness, micro media systems share some additional features different from those rooted in resource constraints which have been the main focus of research in small media systems to date. These additional features are (1) dominating role of government within the media sector, (2) high social integration in society, (3) multi-functionalism among journalists and media outlets, and (4) the importance of single individuals. By introducing the concept “micro media systems,” this article calls for a broader approach to studying the smallest media systems than a merely structural focus on media markets. It also suggests that instead of conceiving the scale as a binary variable, treating the scale as a continuous variable is favorable.

The argument is made by first reviewing the literature on the size as a variable in media system research and then literature on political systems in microstates. An exploration of how the small social field of microstates shapes very small media systems will then follow. An argument for redefining the variable size as a number of role-relationships will then be made, followed by a discussion of the implications of this definition on existing research on the structural conditions of media markets in small states. Lastly, it is argued that when studying the sociological effects of scale, size should be defined as the number of overlapping role-relationships.

Literature on small media systems

The term “media system” encompasses all mass media within a given social and political system (Hardy, 2013: 185). According to Hallin and Mancini (2004), media systems vary depending on several variables rooted in the political system such as the role of the state and whether rule of law and rational-legal authority or clientelism dominate the allocation of resources in society. Several scholars who have studied how size affects media have argued that state size should be added to this list of system-differentiating variables (Hardy, 2013; Humphreys, 2011; Lowe and Nissen, 2011; Puppis, 2009; Trappel, 1991, 2014). However, all of these studies have a structural economic approach. Puppis (2009), Trappel (2014), and others have argued that media systems in small states are characterized by “structural peculiarities” relating to diseconomies of scale in the media markets. They argue that generally small media systems are characterized by a shortage of resources in terms of capital and know-how; a small audience and small advertising markets; dependence on larger states and an inflow of foreign media content which make the small media systems vulnerable. As production costs are almost the same regardless of market size, small media markets generate limited advertisement revenue and have audience markets too small to realize economies of scale. As a consequence, there is less variety in local media supply in small markets which in turn leads to foreign media products with no adaptation to local culture and perspectives being highly present in these markets (Puppis, 2009). News media in particular cannot be completely import substituted and the representation of ideas becomes more limited than in bigger media markets (Trappel, 2014). With limited capability, small media systems can do little but adjust to globalization as well as media regulation of bigger states. This has implications for media regulation in small states, fostering a political inclination toward protecting local media diversity (Puppis, 2009).

In this literature on media systems in small states, these states have been defined as those with a population below a certain population threshold or within a certain band. For example, those with a population above 100,000 and below 18 million (Puppis, 2009) or above “few hundred thousand” and below 20 million (Lowe and Nissen, 2011; Trappel, 2014). The problem with this definition is twofold. Firstly, the specific lower cut-off point has not been justified. Secondly, this literature overlooks the sociological effects of smallness such as how smallness in itself fosters clientelism in the media sector. Although, clientelism and instrumentalization of media are central concepts in Hallin and Mancini's Mediterranean model, the concepts have mainly been explained by the late introduction of democracy (Hallin and Mancini, 2004; Hallin and Papathanassopoulos, 2002) and have not been linked to state size.

In summary, the literature has stated that micro media systems are different from small media systems; however, why or how this is the case has not yet been investigated. The next section contains a review of the literature on democracies and public administrations in microstates from which important insights can be transferred to media studies and bring a more nuanced understanding of these systems in microstates.

Literature on political systems in microstates

Within the literature on democracy, population size is increasingly considered an important factor that explains the nature of political systems in microstates (Veenendaal, 2015), as small countries and territories are not simply smaller versions of large countries (Randma-Liiv and Sarapuu, 2019).

On one hand, micro size has positive effects on democracy. For example, close-knit societies generate high levels of trust and mutual obligation, ensuring efficacy; similarly, a small population enables increased communication between politicians and the electorate which can make the political system more responsive to the electorate (Anckar and Anckar, 1995). On the other hand, smallness has negative effects on democracy because smallness impedes pluralism and blurs the distinction between public and private spheres. This increases the likelihood of corruption, clientelism, and other forms of particularistic politics, as the same people interact with each other in various capacities (Corbett and Veenendaal, 2018). Benedict (1967) argued that small societies are characterized by many overlapping and interdependent networks where each individual plays several roles. He termed this “overlapping role-relationships”. When a society is so small, people inevitably interact with each other repeatedly in different social situations and in different capacities. For example, the person in front of you in the supermarket line also happens to be a famous TV journalist and your former classmate all at once. Therefore, in small societies, professional roles often become diffuse as they cannot be seen as distinct from other roles the same person plays in society (Benedict, 1967: 27).

The high social integration of small societies facilitates cooperation and unity within the population because when people interact with the same people throughout their life, they tend to try not to fall out with these people as the costs can be high. People learn to get along by seeking compromise and avoiding conflict and criticism. Consequently, the lack of anonymity can constrain the free exchange of ideas. In larger societies, anonymity is possible, and it is easier to openly disagree with people you most likely will not meet again (Benedict, 1967; Eriksen, 2020; Lowenthal, 1987; Sutton, 2007). Overlapping role-relationships of course also exist in larger societies; however, the larger the society, the fewer overlapping role-relationships. Similarly, the possibility of bringing in outsiders with no overlapping role-relationships exists in larger societies, whereas in small societies outsiders have to be imported (Benedict, 1967: 31).

The short social distances and interdependent networks in small societies foster particularism (Parsons, 1951). Particularism refers to practices such as clientelism, nepotism, and patronage whereby powerholders cater to specific citizens, clients or voters (Veenendaal, 2019). This can be contrasted to universalistic politics which refer to political actions that apply to all members of society and therefore do not discriminate between citizens. A factor that fosters particularism is the pervasiveness of government in microstates. In small states, the government is omnipresent and omnipotent (Benedict, 1967; Sutton, 2007) since the government is very large relative to other sectors as it seeks to provide the range of services and functions offered by governments in the larger states (Farrugia, 1993; Sutton, 2007). At the same time the countervailing forces to the government, such as NGOs, pressure groups, and political opposition are few and media and judiciary also tend to be weak (Sutton, 1987: 12).

Small state studies have not only looked at governments’ role in small societies but have also examined how the internal workings of governments in microstates are different from those of larger states. Several studies of public administrations in small states (Farrugia, 1993; Randma-Liiv, 2002; Randma-Liiv and Sarapuu, 2019; Sarapuu and Randma-Liiv, 2020) have argued that due to their smallness, the bureaucracies of microstates lack specialists. Moreover, each individual in the administration is relatively more important to the functioning of the entire administration, as the administration simply consists of fewer individuals. Accordingly, the fewer people working in public administration, the less functional specialization.

To sum up, size is a factor that influences how small societies functions: Small societies are characterized by high social integration, a comparatively larger and dominating government as well as a lack of specialization within government offices meaning that single individuals become important.

The important insight from this literature on democracy regarding how size influences how micro societies’ function can help shed light on how the media systems of these societies work.

Characteristics of micro media systems

When studying media systems in very small states, it quickly becomes apparent that these media systems are very diverse. A relevant question discussed within research in small media systems research is then of course whether “size” can be said to produce a consistent pattern observable across small media systems or whether other factors are more important for how micro media systems work (Hallin, 2009). A large body of literature has shown how many different factors, such as culture, wealth, sharing language with a big neighbor state (Puppis, 2009), geography (Freeman, 2020), and history and post-coloniality (Papoutsaki and Sundar Harris, 2008; Rodny-Gumede, 2020) and many other factors shape media systems. Therefore, before proceeding to a discussion of the variable size, it is important to first examine how some of these factors shape micro media systems.

Firstly, the geographies of microstates are very diverse; some are remote islands in the Pacific characterized by insulation and limited infrastructure while others are densely populated city-states in the heart of Europe. This creates different costs of media distribution (Pickard, 2011 showed how this is the case with broadcasting). Ravn-Højgaard et al. (2021) argued that the different geography and infrastructures are some of the main factors differentiating the media systems of the Faroe Islands, Iceland, and Greenland, as historical differences in infrastructure development have led to different media consumption patterns and different media markets. Compared to Iceland and the Faroe Islands, the infrastructure for media distribution has been much more costly to develop in Greenland because of scattered settlements, large distances, and mountainous topography.

Secondly, the majority of microstates and jurisdictions are either dependencies or former dependencies of larger states that have gained independence in the 20th century. The political institutions in former colonies are often preserved or carbon copied from their former colonizing states—not always with adaptation to the small and local context (Sutton, 2007; Veenendaal, 2018: 34). This colonial legacy has often put its mark on the media system (Rodny-Gumede, 2020). As these former dependents are diverse, the marks they left on the media systems of the dependants are very diverse. This means that the micro media systems are diverse with different histories and colonial ties which can be traced in media consumption, legislation, and normative assumptions about the media (see Corbett and Veenendaal, 2018: 69 for a discussion of how colonial legacy and smallness forms democracies in microstates). For example, British and American influence has set its marks on Caribbean media systems (Storr, 2020) and the influence of Danish rule has set its mark on the media systems of the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Iceland through, for example, legislation and tradition for large public service media and support for private media (Ravn-Højgaard et al., 2021). This public support for the media sector makes it bigger than it would have been solely at market conditions.

Although micro media systems are diverse and many factors such as colonial legacy form micro media systems in different ways that reinforce or weaken the effects of smallness it is argued that small size still creates similar patterns across micro media systems. This pattern can be summarized into four characteristics:

Dominating government

All other things equal, the relative size of the government in microstates compared to other sectors is larger than it is in bigger states (Farrugia, 1993; Sutton, 2007). Furthermore, the government is “subject to fewer constraints from countervailing sectors, pressure groups, or non-governmental institutional activity” (Sutton, 2007: 203). Sutton (2007), Benedict (1967), and Veenendaal (2015: 88) argued that this leads to a power imbalance whereby the government dominates other institutions.

Empirical studies show that the media in microstates are dominated by large governments. For example, in a study of the Dutch Caribbean overseas territories of Curaçao, Aruba, St Maarten, Bonaire, St Eustatius, and Saba which have population sizes ranging from 2,000 to 150,000 people, it was found that the media “tend to be feeble, inefficiently organized, and forced to suppress their criticism of the government, as a result of which their watchdog function is undermined, and their potential contribution to public and political debates is limited” (Veenendaal, 2016: 155). In his study of four microstates—St Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Palau, and San Marino—Veenendaal (2015: 209) also observes that the executive branch of government dominates other institutions in microstates to varying degrees. He argues that the lack of resources caused by smallness undermines the position of the media. Similarly, studies of a dozen microstates in the English-speaking Caribbean (Storr, 2016; Veenendaal, 2013) as well as Malta (Veenendaal, 2019) showed how dominating governments leave media little room to maneuver. In Greenland, the government likewise plays a dominant role in, for example, media advertising and as a news source (Hussain, 2019; Ravn-Højgaard, 2021). Singh (2020) has studied the challenges of the media in the four microstates of Melanesia: Fiji, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu. In these Pacific microstates, the governments—as the strongest economic power—are the major advertizers. Singh (2020: 51) argued that governments use advertising contracts as leverage to influence news coverage due to the media's weak economic base (see also Singh and Prakash, 2008). When the government is the main advertizer, media can easily be accused of pandering to the government which Morris (2015) shows in the case of Fiji's national newspaper the Fiji Sun.

In general, the smaller a state is, the larger the relative size of its public administration (Farrugia, 1993; Sutton, 2007). Media institutions are accordingly more dependent on the government, for example, terms of advertizing contracts or sources for news stories, which can diminish the media's room for maneuver in these societies.

High social integration

As mentioned above, when it comes to the relationship between media and politics, small and close-knit societies can foster particularism and clientelism in the media sector. In Hallin and Mancini's (2004) typology, clientelism is a feature of the “Mediterranean model” where institutions such as political parties have historically played a particularly central role with, for example, a party politized public administration and judiciary as well as a high degree of political instrumentalization of the media. However, the states with media systems belonging to the “Mediterranean model” in Hallin and Mancini's study all have a population of more than 10 million people.

Veenendaal (2019) argued that clientelism in larger societies is of a different nature than clientelism in small societies. In larger societies, clientelism is primarily rooted in “hierarchical party organizations, intricate broker networks, and formal institutional channels” (Veenendaal, 2019: 1035). In small societies, the relations between patron and clients are often direct and reciprocal (Veenendaal, 2019: 1035) and are rooted in personal relations due to kinship and many highly personalized and overlapping role-relationships. This dense social fabric makes direct and reciprocal forms of clientelism very likely to appear in small societies. This form of “small society clientelism” is similar to what Hallin and Mancini (2004: 58) refer to as the earlier form of clientelism in which personal relations are central. This can be contrasted to the later forms of clientelism, characterizing “the Mediterranean model,” where institutions such as political parties and the church are central. In other words, smallness fosters another form of clientelism than the one described in Hallin and Mancini's Mediterranean model.

Examples of this form of “small society clientelism” can be found in the literature on very small media systems. Regarding her study of journalism in small Caribbean societies, Juliette Storr writes:

In these small societies, everyone knows everyone else and degrees of separation are difficult to maintain. The concentric circles of influence are more tightly woven, as politicians can sometimes be family members, friends, neighbors, or former colleagues. These politically centralized social systems also make it difficult for journalists to maintain their independence when covering powerful elites; it is hard for them to criticize those they are related to, those with whom they have worked or maintained friendships. However, Caribbean journalists’ lack of independence has engendered much public criticism, as public doubts over their professionalism continue to surface (Storr, 2016).

This tendency is not only observed in the Caribbean. Singh (2020) argued that in the tightly-knit societies of Melanesia, affiliations such as kinship and traditional power structures restrict journalists’ ability to challenge people in power.

High social integration of micro societies entails dense relations between journalists and their sources. On one hand, the high social proximity in small societies can make it easier for journalists to identify relevant sources, as they often already know the relevant people (Mathisen, 2010: 64). On the other hand, it can also make it more difficult, as fewer relevant sources exist (Hussain, 2019: 140). Few sources and few news media outlets can lead to mutual dependence between sources and journalists. In her ethnographic study of a Greenlandic newsroom, Hussain (2019: 150–160) shows how personal relations between journalists and their sources make distance hard to maintain which hampers journalistic autonomy. She shows how journalists in Greenland utilize different strategies to handle these conflicts of loyalty between being a good journalist and being, for example, a good family member. One strategy she observed is when journalists attempt to uphold a strict role division whereby the journalist at different times put on different roles in interaction with the same people, sticking strictly to one role at a time. In the interview situation, the role is that of a critical journalist. After the interview or at a weekend social gathering, the journalist takes on the role of a family relative. Self-censorship is another strategy Hussain (2019) and Þorláksson (2015) identified among Greenlandic and Icelandic journalists, where the journalists for example ask their sources less critical questions than they would have liked to in order to maintain a good relationship. Being part of a small society while reporting on it demands very high precision in reporting, as mistakes or inaccuracy can have large personal consequences for journalists (Hussain, 2019; Mathisen, 2010).

Because of overlapping role-relationships, it is often challenging to find independent experts in small societies. In a small society, some people are afraid to stand out or be associated with a specific issue in the media (Hussain, 2019). Storr argued that peoples’ unwillingness to talk on record has to do with the lack of anonymity in small societies (2016: 96). Eriksen argued that this lack of anonymity hinders the free exchange of ideas and impedes diversity of opinions represented in the public sphere in small societies (2018). This could imply fewer participants in the public debate. Further studies will hopefully shed light on how this plays out.

It is not only the relationship between journalists and their sources that are dense. The plentiful and close-knit relationships can also be observed among the media audience. In his study of political communication in Iceland, Ólafsson (2020) argued that communication between politicians and the electorate is different in smaller societies than in larger societies. Ólafsson (2020) found that communication between politicians and the electorate in Iceland is often very direct and dense both online and offline and often works two ways: politicians and voters communicate one-to-one on the internet or in real life. In small political systems, the social proximity between elites and citizens makes communication more informal and direct compared to larger systems (Corbett and Veenendaal, 2018; Dahl and Tufte, 1973). When it comes to communication between the elite and the electorate, media, and mediated political communication therefore seems less important in micro societies as informal and direct communication is prevalent between politicians and voters (Veenendaal, 2018). The opposite is the case in larger societies where media is pivotal for political communication, as direct communication between politicians and the electorate is not possible—at least not on a larger scale (Baldacchino and Veenendaal, 2018). Corbett and Veenendaal argued that clientelism easily flourishes in micro societies where media and other institutions do not play prominent roles as intermediaries between the electorate and politicians (Corbett and Veenendaal, 2018; Veenendaal, 2019).

Social media that increasingly fosters many-to-many communication might change or reinforce these dynamics. It can be anticipated that social media usage might have other effects in very small societies compared to larger societies due to dense social fabric and direct communication playing a more important role for political communication and news provision in small societies. Social media can facilitate direct communication between politicians and the electorate or make citizen-to-citizen communication easier, thereby perhaps changing or reducing the role of news media as a provider of information and news. How social media usage affects very small media systems has not yet been studied systematically and could be interesting to study further.

Little differentiation in the media industry

When media systems are very small and resources in media production accordingly sparse, the number of people working in the media sector is inherently very few. Firstly, with a small workforce and few employers, there are few alternative job opportunities if a journalist falls out with his/her employer. This can limit journalistic autonomy as consequences are large for being blacklisted by the only or one among very few news media in the country (Ólafsson and Jóhannsdóttir, 2021; Örnebring and Lauk, 2010). Additionally, a very small media sector sets limits to internal differentiation in the media industry. This is because the smaller the media system is, the fewer people available to take on the required functions resulting in the same people needing to take on more functions. Therefore, small systems entail multi-functionalism (Baldacchino and Veenendaal, 2018; Benedict, 1967; Farrugia, 1993; Sarapuu, 2010). Consequently, in micro media systems, each journalist or media outlet cannot specialize in a specific area or target only a niche audience. Instead, each journalist has to cover a range of topics and areas and each news media outlet has to cater to a broader audience. From covering fishery politics on Monday, the same journalist can be assigned to a story about the lightning of the capital's Christmas tree on Tuesday and then cover a state visit on Wednesday because the newsroom is so small that no journalists can focus solely on one or few specific topics. This makes it harder for journalists to build enough knowledge in a specific area. Multi-functionalism thus creates broader but also more superficial knowledge and impedes journalists’ ability to act as critical watchdogs (Ólafsson, 2020). Ólafsson argued that this makes it “difficult for journalists to be critical gatekeepers if they know little about the areas in which they work” (2020: 153). In Iceland, there are hardly any specialized political journalists (Ólafsson, 2021: 72) or niche media (Jóhannsdóttir and Ólafsson, 2018) because of the small media market.

Dependence on few individuals

Related to this, another characteristic of micro media systems is the dependence on very few individuals. Potentially a single individual disappearing can affect the entire sector (Benedict, 1967; Eriksen, 2018). Benedict (1967) exemplified this by a strike in a factory in the United Kingdom which could not affect the overall British economy, whereas a strike in a single (or the only) factory in Mauritius could affect the entire Mauritian economy. Likewise in the media sector, a few vacancies in a British newsroom would not affect the overall British news provision and media output; however, a few vacancies or layoffs could influence the functioning of the media and have a large effect on the media output in micro media systems. In Greenland, for example, where only around 40 journalists work in the media industry (Ravn-Højgaard et al., 2018), five vacancies in the Greenlandic Public Service media forced the broadcaster to reduce the daily production of news on the web and in TV and radio (Jørgensen, 2022). The Greenlandic PSM is the only radio and TV news provider in the country. The fewer journalists in an outlet or a media system, the higher the share of experience and capacity lost when a single journalist leaves. Small scale in itself creates vulnerability.

Ólafsson (2020) argued that in most national-level political communication research, the unit of analysis is not the individual but larger institutions such as media outlets and political parties. This research accordingly has an underlying assumption that communication—at least to some degree—can be studied without taking into account the actual individuals who take on these roles. However, Ólafsson argued that when examining political communication in small states, individuals playing these roles need to be taken into account as they are so few, and each of them is then accordingly more important. For example, the influential Tongan journalist and editor, Kalafi Moala's critical writings had a large influence on the entire Tongan media output as well as the Tongan political system (Robie, 2013; Singh, 2012). Lindén (2021: 18) argued that in the Åland Islands, the media output and diversity is “dependent on the goodwill and personal preferences of Anders Wiklöf,” a local “benevolent business patron.”

Of course, this is not the same as saying that single individuals cannot have a huge influence on larger media systems but rather that in smaller media systems the influence of single individuals is relatively much stronger because there are so few individuals. The methodological implication is thus that research in micro media systems cannot ignore the individuals who make up this system.

In conclusion, micro media systems share four characteristics: (1) dominating government, (2) high social integration, (3) little differentiation in the media industry, and (4) importance of single individuals. It has been argued that these characteristics are caused by the small size of the media system. However, what is meant by “small size” has so not yet been defined, so the following section will examine and suggest a redefinition of the variable size.

Redefining size

In the literature, there are many definitions of “small states” and “microstates.” Smallness has been defined in terms of geographical area, population size or wealth, for example, measured in terms GDP, or smallness as a relational concept (for a discussion see e.g., Baldacchino and Wivel, 2020; Puppis, 2009; Veenendaal, 2015). In existing studies of media systems in small states, small states have been primarily defined in terms of population size because population size correlates with the size of the media market (Puppis, 2009).¹

In the literature on media systems in small states, a binary definition of size has been applied, categorizing states as either small or large. Small states have been defined as those with a population below a certain population threshold, for example, below 20 million (Puppis, 2009; Trappel, 2014). When distinguishing small states from large states or microstates from small states, however, there is no consensus on a threshold, as there are no natural cut-off points on the continuum of population and ultimately any cut-off point is random (Veenendaal, 2015: 41).

Instead of deciding upon an exact—and ultimately arbitrary—population cut-off to define micro media systems, I argue, like, Sarapuu and Randma-Liiv (2020) do in their studies of public administrations in small states, that it is more appropriate to examine the characteristics of micro media systems along a continuum of size. The advantage of this definition is that it captures that the special dynamics of micro systems are more distinct the smaller the population (Bray and Packer, 1993; Randma-Liiv and Sarapuu, 2019; Sarapuu, 2010 argued that this is the case with public administration).

A continuum approach to scale is sensitive to how the structural features characterizing media systems in small states—identified by Puppis (2009), Lowe and Nissen (2011), and others—become more pronounced the smaller the media system is. Due to the very small media markets of microstates, their media sectors are more challenged by lack of resources and diseconomies of scale compared to those of larger small states. This severely limits local media production and quality of media output, resulting in very low external pluralism in the media market. For example, Singh (2020) argued that structural constraints related to the smallness of the national economies restrict media output in Melanesian microstates of Fiji, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu. Veenendaal (2015) argued that the quality of the media output is very low in San Marino, St Kitts, and Nevis, Palau and Seychelles. Regarding Palau (a Micronesian republic of 18,000 people) specifically, Veenendaal writes:

Due to an inherently small readership and the relatively high costs of printing, publishing a newspaper in Palau is not a lucrative business, which is why most journalists are volunteers, or see journalism merely as a hobby. As a consequence, like in other microstates many people and especially politicians complain about the quality of the news …. (Veenendaal, 2015: 189–191)

Likewise in Iceland, journalists and politicians find media coverage of politics superficial, according to Ólafsson (2021). He argued that resource constraints in the media sector in Iceland “seriously impair Icelandic journalists’ possibilities for in-depth reporting on politics” (Ólafsson, 2020: 152).

The smaller the media market is, the more pronounced the diseconomy of scale. In micro media systems, there are so few resources available in the media industry that it impedes the media sector’s capability to, for example, have sufficient journalists employed to be able to produce quality news.

Size as the number of overlapping role-relationships

When focusing on sociological effects of smallness on media systems—like this article does—it is argued that a continuum approach to population size is the best operationalization of size because the population is defined by the number of overlapping role-relationships (Benedict, 1967; Ólafsson, 2020).

The smaller the society is, the fewer individuals to take on the different roles in society, for example, as newspaper editor, neighbor and cousin, and thus there will be more overlap, for example, the newspaper editor could your neighbor and your cousin all at once. Population size can be considered a proxy for the number of overlapping role-relationships in society. Population size itself does not produce special characteristics but produces overlapping role-relationships. Other factors than population size also influence the number of overlapping role-relationships. Benedict (1967: 32) argued that the degree of openness—or isolation—of a society has an influence on the size of the social field and the number of overlapping role-relationships. Eriksen (2018) argued that connectivity influences a society's scale. The less outsiders coming into the society, the higher number of overlapping role-relationships. Island studies have shown that remoteness or islands’ natural isolation is a factor creating interconnectedness and overlapping role-relationships (Anckar and Anckar, 1995; Veenendaal, 2018). Therefore, the degree of isolation or openness of society influences the level of social integration. For example, the Danish influence and institutional spillover in the Greenlandic media system has led to a continuous stream of Danish journalists often working in the Greenlandic media for some years before returning to Denmark. These foreign journalists are rarely part of the dense social networks and are often only in the country temporarily and therefore often do the kind of reporting that local journalists would not do (Hussain, 2019). All other things equal, this inflow of foreign journalists diminishes the effects of smallness, as the foreign journalists have less overlapping role-relations within the small society.

When size is perceived as a continuous variable, there is no upper threshold where these traits stop being present in media systems. The traits can also be observed in large media systems but to a much lesser degree, as highly personalized relationships of course also exist in larger societies. They are not, however, as prevalent, and it is easier to bring in people with no overlapping role-relationships (Benedict, 1967: 31).

When defining size as the number of overlapping role-relationships it becomes apparent that the concept “micro media systems” is not only applicable to microstates. The same traits present in national micro media systems are found in subnational media systems such as local media systems of societies where the social field is also small. Again, the size of the social field is influenced by several variables such as size of society and geographical isolation, meaning that we are more likely to see the traits of micro media systems in local media of isolated islands than local journalism in metropolitan centers. Looking at local media research, findings confirm this. Mathisen (2010) showed that in local media in Norway, journalists and sources are mutually dependent, as they need to interact over and over both in the roles of sources and journalists but also in other capacities in the local society. Sjøvaag et al., (2019) showed that the size and isolation of local media systems impact on journalism's local community and accountability function in Norway.

Local societies could be isolated geographically by, for example mountains or water as well as by ethnic divides or language barriers—what Zabaleta et al. (2019) called “linguistic communities” in their studies of minority language media in Europe.

Future research should investigate similarities between media systems in microstates and local media systems when it comes to the effects of overlapping role-relationships. In this article, it is argued that there is no inherent difference between media systems in microstates and local media systems. Instead, they should be analyzed along a continuum of scale understood as the number of overlapping role-relationships.

Conclusion

In this article, it has been argued that a broader approach to studying the very smallest media systems rather than focusing on media markets is needed.

High social integration of small societies inhibit journalistic autonomy as relations between journalists and their sources are dense. In micro media systems, the media sector is so small that fluctuations at the level of the individual matters for the entire media sector because there are so few people employed in the entire sector a few vacancies can influence the entire media output. Specialization of outlets and journalists is very limited because of the small market with few outlets and few people in the media sector. This can inhibit the quality of the media output as journalists cannot specialize and gain expertise in a specific area but have to be multi-functional and cover many areas. Lastly, the government plays a dominating role in microstates making media institutions dependent on the government in, for example, terms of advertising contracts or for sources in news stories which can ultimately impede the media's watchdog function toward the government. It is argued that the concept “micro media system” is useful for shedding light on these characteristics of the smallest media systems.

Moreover, this article calls for reconceptualization of the variable size. Rather than conceiving size as a binary variable, as existing research in small media systems has done, it is beneficial to conceive size as a continuous variable in media systems’ research as it allows for more nuanced understandings of the effects of smallness.

Apart from avoiding the problems of how to decide on an arbitrary cut-off point distinguishing between small and large media systems, treating the size as a continuous variable has benefits for comparative research: firstly, it allows for more nuanced insights into the smallest media systems and not least the differences between them than a binary definition allows. This is because an understanding of size of media systems along a continuum can make comparative research sensitive to how the effects of smallness become more pronounced the smaller the society is as the smaller the media markets is, the less resources available. In the same way, the smaller the society, the more overlapping role-relationships. Secondly, when studying the effects of overlapping role-relationships this approach unites research in local and national media systems, as it is argued there is no innate difference, and they should be compared and studied together along a continuum of size.

A future research agenda could therefore focus on the similarities between local and national media systems caused by overlapping role-relationships. Future research should also study how social media usage affects political communication in societies with high social integration, as it is anticipated that social media could facilitate direct communication between politicians and electorate or citizen-to-citizen and thus alter the role of the news media as a provider of information and news.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Signe Ravn-Højgaard

Notes

References

Anckar

(1995) Size, insularity and democracy. Scandinavian Political Studies 18(4): 211–229. Wiley Online Library.

Baldacchino

Veenendaal

(2018) Society and community. In: The Routledge International Handbook of Island Studies. 1st edition. London: Routledge, pp. 339–352. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315556642-16

Baldacchino

Wivel

(2020) Small states: Concepts and theories. In: Godfrey

Wivel

(eds) Handbook on the Politics of Small States. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar, pp. 2–19. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788112932.00007

Benedict

(1967) Sociological characteristics of small territories and their implications for economic development. Institute of Commonwealth Studies 10: 23–36.

Bray

Packer

(1993) Education in Small States. Concepts, Challenges and Strategies. Oxford, New York: Pergamon Press.

Corbett

Veenendaal

(2018) Democracy in Small States: Persisting against All Odds. Oxford University Press.

Dahl

Tufte

(1973) Size and Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Eriksen

(2018) Small is beautiful, but is it viable? Scale and Mauritian options for the next 50 years. The Mauritian Paradox: Fifty years of Development, Diversity and Democracy (2018): 123–133.

Eriksen

(2020) Implications of runaway globalisation in the Seychelles. Small States & Territories 21(1): 1–9.

10.

Farrugia

(1993) The special working environment of senior administrators in small states. World Development 21(2): 221–226.

11.

Freeman

(2020) Differentiating distance in local and hyperlocal news. Journalism 21(4): 524–540.

12.

Hallin

(2009) Comment: State size as a variable in comparative analysis. International Communication Gazette 71(1–2): 101–103.

13.

Hallin

Mancini

(2004) Comparing Media Systems: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.3917/res.134.0280

14.

Hallin

Papathanassopoulos

(2002) Political clientelism and the media: Southern Europe and Latin America in comparative perspective. Media, Culture & Society 24(2): 175–195.

15.

Hardy

(2013) Comparing media systems. In: Esser

Hanitzsch

(eds) The Handbook of Comparative Communication Research. London: Routledge, pp. 185–206. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203149102-20

16.

Humphreys

(2011) A Political Scientist’s Contribution to the Comparative Study of Media Systems in Europe: A Response to Hallin and Mancini. Trends in Communiations Policy Research (1956): 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.

17.

Hussain

(2019) Journalistik i små samfund: Et studie af journalistisk praksis på grønlandske nyhedsmedier [Journalism in small societies: A studie of journalistic practices in Greenlandic newsrooms]. Roskilde: Roskilde Universitet.

18.

Jóhannsdóttir

(2019) The State of News Media in Iceland - in the Beginning of the 21st Century. Roskilde: Roskilde University.

19.

Jóhannsdóttir

Ólafsson

(2018) The Icelandic news media in times of crisis and change. Veftímaritið Stjórnmál og stjórnsýsla 14(1): 189–210.

20.

Jørgensen

(2022) Dårlig løn tvinger Grønlands public service-kanal til at skære i nyheder [Low salary forces Greenland’s public service broadcaster to cut news broadcasts]. Available at: https://journalisten.dk/daarlig-loen-tvinger-groenlands-public-service-kanal-til-at-skaere-i-nyheder/ (accessed 1 July 2022).

21.

Lindén

(2021) Åland - A peculiar media system. Nordicom Review 42(S2): 8–21.

22.

Lowe

Nissen

(2011) Small Among Giants: Television Broadcasting in Smaller Countries. https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2016v41n2a3033.

23.

Lowenthal

(1987) Social features. In: Clarke

Payne

(eds) Politics, Security and Development in Small States. London: Allen & Unwin, pp. 26–49.

24.

Mathisen

(2010) Lokaljournalistikk - Blind Patriotisme Eller Kritisk Korrektiv? [Local journalism – blind patriotism or critical corrective]. Kristiansand: IJ-forlaget.

25.

Morris

(2015) Fiji media regulation: Emerging from ‘worst of times’ to ‘best of times’? Pacific Journalism Review: Te Koakoa 21(1): 34–49.

26.

Ólafsson

(2020) Factoring size into the equation. Nordic Journal of Media Studies 2(1): 145–156.

27.

Ólafsson

(2021) Superficial, shallow and reactive: How a small state news media covers politics. Nordicom Review 42(S2): 70–86.

28.

Ólafsson

Jóhannsdóttir

(2021) Media and politics in Iceland. In: Skogerbø

Ihlen

Kristensen

(eds) Power, Communication, and Politics in the Nordic Countries. Gothenburg: Nordicom, University of Gothenburg, pp. 51–68. https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855299-3.

29.

Örnebring

Lauk

(2010) Does size matter? Journalistic values and working conditions in small countries. In: ECREA conference, Hamburg, Germany, 2010, pp. 12–15.

30.

Papoutsaki

Sundar Harris

(2008) Unpacking ‘islandness’ in south pacific islands communication. South pacific Iilands communication: Regional perspectives, local issues: 1–14.

31.

Parsons

(1951) The Social System. London: Routledge and Keagan Paul Etd.

32.

Pickard

(2011) Broadcast economics, challenges of scale, and country size. In: Lowe

Nissen

(eds) Small Among Giants: Television Broadcasting in Smaller Countries. Gothenburg: Nordicom, pp. 43–56.

33.

Puppis

(2009) Media regulation in small states. International Communication Gazette 71(1–2): 7–17.

34.

Randma-Liiv

(2002) Small states and bureaucracy: Challenges for public administration. Trames 6(4): 374.

35.

Randma-Liiv

Sarapuu

(2019) Public governance in small states: From paradoxes to research agenda. In: Massey

(ed) A Research Agenda for Public Administration. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp. 162–179.

36.

Ravn-Højgaard

(2021) Media policy in Greenland. Nordicom Review 42(S2): 36–52.

37.

Ravn-Højgaard

Paulsen

Willig

, et al. (2018) Tusagassiuutit 2018- En kortlægning af de grønlandske medier [Media 2018 – a mapping of Greenlandic media]. Nuuk: Ilisimatusarifk. Available at: https://uni.gl/media/4352527/kaltusagassiuutit2018-rapport.pdf.

38.

Ravn-Højgaard

Jóhannsdóttir

Karlsson

, et al. (2021) Particularities of Media Systems in the West Nordic Countries. Nordicom Review 42(2): 102–123.

39.

Robie

(2013) Changing paradigms in pacific journalism, 2013. In: Don’t Spoil My Beautiful Face: Media, Mayhem and Human Rights in the Pacific. Little Island Press, pp. 321–344.

40.

Rodny-Gumede

(2020) Expanding comparative media systems analysis from transitional to postcolonial societies. International Communication Gazette 82(7): 611–627.

41.

Sarapuu

(2010) Comparative analysis of state administrations: The size of state as an independent variable. Halduskultuur 11(1): 30–43.

42.

Sarapuu

Randma-Liiv

(2020) Small states: Public management and policy-making. In: Baldacchino

Wivel

(eds) Handbook on the Politics of Small States. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp. 55–69.

43.

Singh

(2012) Investigative journalism: Challenges, perils, rewards in seven Pacific island countries. Pacific Journalism Review 18(1): 83–104.

44.

Singh

(2020) The media and journalism challenges in Melanesia: Addressing the impacts of external and internal threats in Fiji, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. Pacific Journalism Review 26(1): 48–62.

45.

Singh

Prakash

(2008) Storms in the pacific: The volatile mix of democracy, politics and the media in three island states. South Pacific Islands Communication: Regional Perspectives, Local Issues 12(2): 117–132. Available at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article60273944.

46.

Sjøvaag

Pedersen

Lægreid

(2019) The local media system in Norway. Nordicom Review 40(2019): 63–89.

47.

Storr

(2016) Journalism in a Small Place: Making Caribbean News Relevant, Comprehensive, and Independent. Calgary: University of Calgary Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12308

48.

Storr

(2020) State of play - local media, power and society in the Caribbean. In: The Routledge Companion to Local Media and Journalism. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp. 63–71.

49.

Sutton

(1987) Political aspects. In: Clarke

Payne

(eds) Politics, Security, and Development in Small States. London: Allen & Unwin.

50.

Sutton

(2007) Democracy and good governance in small states. In: Kisanga

Danchie

(eds) Commonwealth Small States: Issues and Prospects. London: Commonwealth Secretariat, pp. 201–217.

51.

Þorláksson

(2015) Mannorðsmorðingjar? Félagslegar Og Persónulegar Pælingar Um Stöðu Fjölmiðlunar á Íslandi [Reputation Murderers? Social and Personal Thoughts on the Media Situation in Iceland]. Reykjavík: Salka.

52.

Trappel

(1991) Born losers or flexible adjustment? The Media policy dilemma of small states. European Journal of Communication 6(3): 355–371.

53.

Trappel

(2014) Small states and European media policy. The Palgrave Handbook of European Media Policy: 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137032195.

54.

Veenendaal

(2013) Size and institutional legitimacy: The case of St Kitts and Nevis. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 51: 343–361.

55.

Veenendaal

(2015) Politics and Democracy in Microstates. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315761909

56.

Veenendaal

(2016) Smallness and Status debates in overseas territories: Evidence from the Dutch Caribbean. Geopolitics 21(1): 148–170.

57.

Veenendaal

(2018) Islands of democracy. Area 52(1): 30–37.

58.

Veenendaal

(2019) How smallness fosters clientelism: A case study of Malta. Political Studies 67(4): 1034–1052.

59.

Zabaleta

Gutierrez

Ferré-Pavia

, et al. (2019) Facts and transformations in European minority language media systems amid digitalization and economic crisis. International Communication Gazette 81(3): 235–258.